Updates Orion (MPCV) Updates and Discussion

[DanM]

Same here. I don't know why they don't look at launching it on at Atlas V or something similar. Man-rating an Atlas V has to be less expensive and time consuming than designing, building and testing something completely new. The again, they had a successful (early) test of the Aries rocket...dropping that sounds like a big mistake to me.

The design of the SLS sounds a lot like the Ares IV, anyways.

IMHO, the MPCV sounds like the only logical way to explore BEO.

 

[FADEC]

There are no BEO missions planned as yet. It makes absolutely no sense to fund a project that has no known use.

There is no precisely planned mission yet because NASA was and still is busy with STS (and the ISS). But there are goals for the future already, like asteroids and Mars. NASA itself won't fly into LEO manned again I think. This was outsourced to the commercial sector. But for future BEO missions it is wise to start developing a crew module now. And the MPCV is a good approach I think.

There are other vehicles for getting to LEO that have already flown hardware, and look likely to become operational long before MPCV.

LEO operations was outcourced.

Currently all US operations take place in LEO, for which BEO capability and a large manuvering capability are not needed.

LEO operations was outsourced.

NASA does intend to fly to asteroids and to Mars in future.

MPCV is cost-plus, whereas SpaceX and similar are reward-based programs. NASA will pour far more money into MPCV to get some results, than it would pour into SpaceX to get more dramatic results.

SpaceX won't do it cost-minus. As soon as they begin to add crews, it will become quite expensive whilst the know-how and support will come from NASA anyway. And SpaceX won't develope something like the MPCV for BEO missions for less money I think. It's a castle in the air like it is a castle in the air that SpaceX is fully privately funded. Without NASAs taxpayer money, SpaceX would be pretty much grounded.

Using a ~70 ton capable vehicle to launch a 4-person capsule to the ISS? What?

LEO operations was outsourced.

The MCPV is not intended to be used for ISS crew transportation as far as I know.

 

[T.Neo]

1. If Obama stood on a stage right now and announced a BEO mission, would it change the requirements for MPCV? No. My point is that we don't actually need a specific mission to build MPCV - NASA knows it's going BEO, and MPCV will be needed for that, regardless of the specific destination.

No, NASA does not know it is going BEO. That is just talk. Even having planned missions does not garuntee that things will come to fruition (see Constellation), but it does help.

Currently we do not even have dates, destinations, or associated hardware for a BEO mission... it is completely pointless to spend money on something so uncertain.

2. True, there are many other vehicles for getting to LEO, but MPCV is not being designed for LEO or ISS. Only commercial vehicles are doing that (and they can't do BEO).

3. See above.

Yeah, except all NASA is doing at the moment is LEO operations, it will be doing LEO operations for the forseeable future, and it doesn't need a BEO vehicle or an absurd launch vehicle for those missions.

4. The results from MPCV will be far different than from Dragon, since it is designed for a completely different purpose.

And at a far higher cost.

It wouldn't be impossible to do BEO with a Dragon-derived vehicle, the heatshield is already designed to withstand reentry from lunar-return velocities (provides a good safety margin for LEO operations). You could, for example, take a modified Dragon capsule and place it on an entirely new service module, to create a BEO craft.

You could even get to the point where you could develop an entirely different craft and it'd be cheaper than MPCV.

IMHO, the MPCV sounds like the only logical way to explore BEO.

Well, you should have never told that to NASA in the 1960s, as they had no such thing as an MPCV and they managed BEO operations just fine.

There is no precisely planned mission yet because NASA was and still is busy with STS (and the ISS). But there are goals for the future already, like asteroids and Mars. NASA itself won't fly into LEO manned again I think. This was outsourced to the commercial sector. But for future BEO missions it is wise to start developing a crew module now. And the MPCV is a good approach I think.

So wait... NASA is going to try something new, but also just completely ignore the new direction and do stuff the same way anyway, because it is BEO and when you go BEO there is some magical barrier that requires cost+?

What are these "goals"? They are just fluffy ideals, with no real substance, no promise, no certainty... they are just "goals".

I can say it is my "goal" to set up a surf-shop in New Caledonia, doesn't mean I'm actually going to end up doing it.

LEO operations was outcourced.

And?

NASA does intend to fly to asteroids and to Mars in future.

And I intend to become a pop-hit sensation. Doesn't mean I actually will. Should I start spending all sorts of money on it?

SpaceX won't do it cost-minus. As soon as they begin to add crews, it will become quite expensive whilst the know-how and support will come from NASA anyway. And SpaceX won't develope something like the MPCV for BEO missions for less money I think. It's a castle in the air like it is a castle in the air that SpaceX is fully privately funded. Without NASAs taxpayer money, SpaceX would be pretty much grounded.

I don't think you understand what I meant;

- MPCV (for example) is developed for a certain cost, plus overruns. This means that it is in the interest of the contractor to delay things.

- Dragon is developed on a reward basis. This means that SpaceX gets rewards when they have completed goals set by NASA. This means it is in the interest of the contractor to perform.

When Dragon is in operation, NASA will pay SpaceX for its use. That is simple.

And there are of course many things set up about SpaceX, that do not make it miraculous, but they maybe make it a little bit better.

Already the Senate Launch System makes absolutely no sense for an MPCV mission to LEO, but a single Falcon flight can launch Dragon for a far lower cost (even if we consider that real costs are higher than stated costs here). And Falcon Heavy can deliver a huge amount of payload to LEO, more than you would know what to do with, while still achieving higher flight rates than SLS- thus lowering costs.

The MCPV is not intended to be used for ISS crew transportation as far as I know.

Yes, but what else is NASA doing in space?

Yes, they say they're going to go BEO. That is nice.

I say I'm going to start up a surf-shop. Shall I sell all my belongings, buy a plot of land in New Caledonia, start building a hut, and stock up on surf-supplies?

 

[FADEC]

Building a big space station also was nothing more than a fluffy ideal for many years. They wanted to use Skylab - scrapped. They wanted to build "Freedom" - abandoned. Instead they ended up with something bigger - an international project. In the end the STS program can be closed by the words: mission accomplished - space station built.

Not doing something because the future is uncertain is not what made NASA be what it is and do what it did. The human dream always was to explore the solar system. And NASA has to start at one point. It would be very stupid to say that they should bury their heads in the sand because there is no fund and no sign from Washington yet.

NASA just needs two things to finally get rid off I think: Obama and the economic problems.

 

[T.Neo]

The economic problems will never go away, I think we need to realise that. NASA will always be viewed as, in certain respects, unecessary, or un-useful, and in the US, there will always be things that have more money dedicated to them, like the military for example (even though if 10% of the military budget was shunted to NASA, NASA would have an absurdly large budget).

I don't know why people give Obama so much trouble. Obama has pretty much just become the new punching bag for everything...

Obama canceled Constellation. We should all thank him for that- Constellation was a badly overbudget, badly overdue project, with a bad architecture. It was pretty much doomed to failure from the start, and if Obama didn't cancel it, someone else would have.


It is better to bury your heads in the sands of low-budget thinking, than do bury your head in the sand of unecessary spending. Funding and directive from Washington might never come, and all that money is just wasted and spent for nothing- spent only to give more money to the huge US aerospace companies.

The STS mission will never be accomplished, because the STS mission failed. The STS mission was to provide regular, safe, cheap(er) access to space. And to set the stage for all sorts of space activities. That never happened.

I really cannot fathom why anyone would have attachment to the MPCV, or the absurd Senate Launch System. Or why people are so skeptical of SpaceX. It is important to be cautious of course, but not to dismiss such things outright.

Why isn't it blatantly obvious to everyone, that the mega-bucks contracts are far more for politics and corporate welfare, than they are for achieving actual NASA successes?

Is that really the plan? Spend billions of dollars on an unecessary spacecraft and just hope that it finds a use? Just hope? :facepalm:

 

[Capt_hensley]

- It wouldn't be impossible to do BEO with a Dragon-derived vehicle, the heatshield is already designed to withstand reentry from lunar-return velocities (provides a good safety margin for LEO operations). You could, for example, take a modified Dragon capsule and place it on an entirely new service module, to create a BEO craft.

- MPCV (for example) is developed for a certain cost, plus overruns. This means that it is in the interest of the contractor to delay things.

- Dragon is developed on a reward basis. This means that SpaceX gets rewards when they have completed goals set by NASA. This means it is in the interest of the contractor to perform.

-When Dragon is in operation, NASA will pay SpaceX for its use. That is simple.

1 Agreed! I'm a big proponent of this idea, and I think Elon Musk is too.
2 I thought this was mostly firm fixed price contract? Do you have a reference? http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09618.pdf Page 8
3 Not just rewards, it has a contract, Firm Fixed price for 12 flights and a schedule. http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php (RSC program) Elon Musk sold Dragon and Falcon at a public fixed price, that's confidence and balls in a market without them. The incentive also comes from NASA subsidising up front to help produce results. It also comes from contract failure consequinces. The withdrawl of contracts and funding for failing to meet the schedule and goals of the RSC program.
4 Agreed, and it was designed from the get go to ba a Cargo and Manned spacecraft. You might say Dragon even meets STS goals. I say it does, even if the cargo size and weights are limited.

"To ensure a rapid transition from cargo to crew capability, the cargo and crew configurations of Dragon are almost identical, with the exception of the crew escape system, the life support system and onboard controls that allow the crew to take over control from the flight computer when needed." from:
http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

 

[FADEC]

I didn't mean economic problems at NASA. I meant the current situation of the US.

Economically the Shuttle never became what it was meant to be. I think this is pretty much obvious to everyone familiar with the program inside and outside of NASA. But the Shuttle has accomplished one of Americas big dreams regarding the future of space flight - building a big steady outpost in earth orbit. The Shuttle has got capabilites no other manned system ever had and won't have for a very long period of time. It's a unique vehicle which was way ahead of its time and still is ahead of what other nations do have. The Shuttles accomplishments and capabilities can't be argued away by bad economics and bad politics. It's a story of success but with shadows.

And we shouldn't be too naive with SpaceX. It only is capable to launch its Falcon into orbit because of NASAs tax money. They just took the advantage of the ISS program and the shutdown of STS. All possible only because NASA exists and "wastes" all that money for decades. No STS = no ISS = no SpaceX Falcon 9. And SpaceX won't have the know-how to put humans into earth orbit within the next years without NASA.

We are still very far away from truly commercial space flight I think. SpaceX is as dependent on NASAs future as NASAs future is on congress. And commercial space flight and space exploration are too different pairs of shoes anyway. What SpaceX does has nothing to do with exploration. For exploration one needs something like NASA. Something like SpaceX won't do it on its own because nobody is going to pay the bucks aside from the government.

How long will the ISS survive? 2020? A little later? It will come to an end like STS and everything else before. NASA needs to be prepared for an era which is not only related to low earth orbit operations. And for this the MPCV is the best apporach right now. Only the launch vehicle is a different story.

 

[T.Neo]

1 Agreed! I'm a big proponent of this idea, and I think Elon Musk is too.

I think Musk spoke about using different vehicles for BEO flight, but I don't see why developing something from Dragon wouldn't make sense, even if it was a vague derivative... there is already something there, and one would imagine that some capabilities for future use have already been included.

2 I thought this was mostly firm fixed price contract? Do you have a reference? http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09618.pdf Page 8

In terms of stuff like Constellation, I'm pretty sure it's a contract, plus overruns. At least, that's what I've heard... I don't have any immediate sources to back up that claim though.

4 Agreed, and it was designed from the get go to ba a Cargo and Manned spacecraft. You might say Dragon even meets STS goals. I say it does, even if the cargo size and weights are limited.

Meets STS goals entirely? Probably not. Comes close in many respects? Definitely.

MPCV is 2-4 people only; Dragon has an original capacity for 7. That matches STS in crew capacity at least.

"To ensure a rapid transition from cargo to crew capability, the cargo and crew configurations of Dragon are almost identical, with the exception of the crew escape system, the life support system and onboard controls that allow the crew to take over control from the flight computer when needed."

Not the docking system? Is the manned Dragon still going to have the CBM port, instead of the more convenient iLIDS?

I didn't mean economic problems at NASA. I meant the current situation of the US.

Well yes... I think that goes a bit beyond the scope of the problem with NASA alone.

And we shouldn't be too naive with SpaceX. It only is capable to launch its Falcon into orbit because of NASAs tax money. They just took the advantage of the ISS program and the shutdown of STS. All possible only because NASA exists and "wastes" all that money for decades. No STS = no ISS = no SpaceX Falcon 9. And SpaceX won't have the know-how to put humans into earth orbit within the next years without NASA.

That is the silliest argument I've ever heard.

Firstly, STS funds go towards STS. Not Falcon or SpaceX or COTS, or even Lockheed Martin and the MPCV.

Secondly, the cost of SpaceX has been far lower than the cost of Constellation and has actually delivered results.

Thirdly, you speak of what SpaceX would be without NASA. But what would MPCV be without NASA?

If NASA disappeared in a month's time, SpaceX would have a chance to sustain itself via commercial contracts and grow, and offer flights on DragonLab or similar, for example.

And MPCV would be totally dead of course.

What SpaceX does has nothing to do with exploration. For exploration one needs something like NASA. Something like SpaceX won't do it on its own because nobody is going to pay the bucks aside from the government.

Yeah, that is the ideal situation. Of course, the problem is, NASA doesn't seem to be all that good with exploration either.

And SpaceX might be the key for further exploration by NASA.

If it wasn't for government funding, a private company could still perform exploration- as a publicity stunt.

On the other hand, what is so un-commercial about selling a service to a government?

How long will the ISS survive? 2020? A little later? It will come to an end like STS and everything else before. NASA needs to be prepared for an era which is not only related to low earth orbit operations. And for this the MPCV is the best apporach right now. Only the launch vehicle is a different story.

The general idea is to try and extend the ISS for as long as possible, I think.

The thing is, what limits BEO exploration isn't really politics, it's difficulty. With a hydrolox engine, you need maybe a mass ratio of 3 to do a TLI. This means that your launch costs, for example, are tripled (not accounting for the fact that you also have to lift propellant tanks to contain the propellant, engines to burn it, and other structures and systems to tie everything together and control it). And all that hardware has to be built, at a cost too.

And then you also have all the sort of R&D stuff, and the danger and the risk, etc. There's a reason all manned exploration since Apollo 17 has been in LEO. It's that BEO exploration is difficult.

So it is likely that for the ISS period, stuff will mainly be in LEO- and it will likely remain that way for some time.

And even then, MPCV isn't the best approach for a BEO vehicle. It isn't the best approach. Flying Dragon for a decade and a half, and then bolting an SM onto it- would be a far better idea.

And the launch system for MPCV makes no sense at all. It doesn't exist. Granted, neither does the Falcon 9H, but the basic architecture is there. And if you wanted to badly enough, you could probably even do a BEO Dragon with the conventional F9.

In fact, the ideal BEO system is not a capsule with an SM at all, but rather a set of small cogs in a large infrastructure of BEO transport, logistics, and propellant handling. In that case your capsule would be more of a surface-LEO crew taxi and emergency escape vehicle, than a critical core component.

 

[FADEC]

MPCV is 2-4 people only; Dragon has an original capacity for 7. That matches STS in crew capacity at least.

Dragon is basically designated for ferry flights to and from ISS. The MPCV is to be used for long term missions beyond earth orbit. One won't do BEO missions with 7 humans cramped in a small capsule.

STS funds go towards STS. Not Falcon or SpaceX or COTS, or even Lockheed Martin and the MPCV.

STS is funded by the same tax money as Falcon 9 launches.

the cost of SpaceX has been far lower than the cost of Constellation and has actually delivered results.

Constellation was more than a 10 tons payload capacity rocket and a ISS ferry capsule on top. It was meant to be the future manned program of the US with a massive infrastructure behind (NASA). One of NASAs mistake certainly was to try to man-rate a single solid rocket booster first stage.

Falcon 9 for now is an unmanned rocket with an unspectacular payload capacity of 10 tons to LEO. Its development cost was half a billion USD. That's indeed relatively low, but it's still unmanned. SpaceX hasn't performed any manned activities yet. Not even on the ground as far as I know. They don't have training centers, no space suits and other required stuff. They either have to establish all this or it has to be done by NASA, which I think will be the case anyway. And as soon as this takes place, we'll see that the costs will significantly increase. NASA will have to spend a lot more then. Musk doesn't have that money and he won't get it from anybody else.

you speak of what SpaceX would be without NASA. But what would MPCV be without NASA?

That was my point. No NASA = almost nothing. Nobody else in the US has explored space yet and isn't going to do.

If NASA disappeared in a month's time, SpaceX would have a chance to sustain itself via commercial contracts and grow, and offer flights on DragonLab or similar, for example.

And MPCV would be totally dead of course.

The MPCV would be as dead as SpaceX. SpaceX has spend 500 million USD for developing Falcon 9 and Dragon. But NASA, surprise surprise, has spend SpaceX's total expenditures since 2006 (which was 350 million USD). NASA has funded almost the entire Falcon 1 and 9 test flights and a huge amount for development. SpaceX would be on the rocks and not in orbit these days without NASAs money.

Of course, the problem is, NASA doesn't seem to be all that good with exploration either.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_program"]Explorer program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mercury"]Project Mercury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini"]Project Gemini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program"]Apollo program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab"]Skylab - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle"]Space Shuttle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station"]International Space Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_program"]Voyager program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope"]Hubble Space Telescope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_X-ray_Observatory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini–Huygens

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_rover"]Opportunity rover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Mars_Odyssey"]2001 Mars Odyssey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter"]Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

etc...

SpaceX neither is the key for NASAs exploration programs, nor does SpaceX explore space. SpaceX is basically funded by NASA just for one reaon: to continue flying cargo and maybe crews to the ISS after Shuttle retirement. Aside from NASA there is nobody else in the US who explores space.

MPCV isn't the best approach for a BEO vehicle. It isn't the best approach. Flying Dragon for a decade and a half, and then bolting an SM onto it- would be a far better idea.

What makes Dragon more BEO capable/"far better" than the MPCV?

And the launch system for MPCV makes no sense at all. It doesn't exist.

A heavy lifter makes lots of sense. Hopefully nobody won't ever again build something together in orbit by multiple launches over years but this time for flying to Mars. That way the spacecraft will be aged before it even left earth orbit :lol:

 

[GoForPDI]

Is Dragon a manned tended piloted spacecraft? No. Its as simple as that. For the moment it is a cargo taxi for LEO.

The MPCV is far in advance of what Dragon is. From its conception it was designed and built to be a long duration manned spacecraft. Yes, Dragon could sustain manned flight, but to do the things the MPCV could do it would need a complete overhaul in places. And I'm not exactly anti-SpaceX. Thats just the facts.

Dragon and MPCV are two entirely different things.

 

[Capt_hensley]

^ Well this is all fine and dandy but...

My only argument is that Space X receives only enough NASA funding to make the trip worth it. Space X knows what it has spent, NASA knows what it has spent from what I have read it's been a 60/40 split.

MPCV is currently vaporware, not one has been launched. I like the concept behind MPCV, but where is it?

Who says you have to put 7 astronauts aboard Dragon, why not 3 with an extra 700 lbs of cargo, gasses, water, food and the like. With it's solar arrays a 20 day mission is not out of the question. In my mind that includes a BEO profile, even if it's not for that purpose, it's possible.

It's more than we have with a grounded MPCV. Besides it looks like the Chinese will go to the moon, and beat us all out of LEO for the first time in 40 years. Who's to say they won't have a Mars lander before we do?

 

[ky]

This capsule for NASA is the furthest in design and building.But there are also other proposals....

CST-100

These two proposals are based on the HL-20 lifting body....

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser"]Dream Chaser[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin_New_Shepard"]Blue Origin New Shepard[/ame]

The fact that seemiingly make Dragon better is that it seats more people.

 

[T.Neo]

Dragon is basically designated for ferry flights to and from ISS. The MPCV is to be used for long term missions beyond earth orbit. One won't do BEO missions with 7 humans cramped in a small capsule.

Several things here;

1. For going to LEO, which is all that NASA is doing for sure, Dragon can launch 7 people, and MPCV can launch only 4. That not only makes MPCV superfluous, but inferior.

2. What Capt_Hensley said. You can swap out some crew members for extra supplies- to get a less cramped capsule, and longer mission duration. For now though, NASA is flying to LEO, and performance in flying to LEO is the major issue here.

3. For mature BEO transportation, you don't want to cram all your people into a capsule anyway. And for a long-term (i.e. Mars) mission, your crew will go mad if you keep them in a capsule, anyway. Ideally you want a capsule only to provide the ability to reenter and land on Earth, in an emergency.

STS is funded by the same tax money as Falcon 9 launches.

Wrong.

If that money is being spent on STS, how can it be spent on F9 as well?

Are you going to say next, that you can burn rocket propellant on a Soyuz, and then burn it again on an Atlas? :shifty:

Constellation was more than a 10 tons payload capacity rocket and a ISS ferry capsule on top. It was meant to be the future manned program of the US with a massive infrastructure behind (NASA). One of NASAs mistake certainly was to try to man-rate a single solid rocket booster first stage.

Please read again:

- Constellation was a badly overbudget, badly overdue project, with a bad architecture. It was pretty much doomed to failure from the start, and if Obama didn't cancel it, someone else would have.

What it was supposed to do, was nice. Unfortunately it never did a good job at actually getting stuff done.

Falcon 9 for now is an unmanned rocket with an unspectacular payload capacity of 10 tons to LEO. Its development cost was half a billion USD. That's indeed relatively low, but it's still unmanned. SpaceX hasn't performed any manned activities yet. Not even on the ground as far as I know. They don't have training centers, no space suits and other required stuff. They either have to establish all this or it has to be done by NASA, which I think will be the case anyway. And as soon as this takes place, we'll see that the costs will significantly increase. NASA will have to spend a lot more then. Musk doesn't have that money and he won't get it from anybody else.

The money that SpaceX will need, is likely still less than the money that will be spent on MPCV, for effectively getting nowhere with it.

And Falcon 9 is an extremely impressive vehicle, in terms of its history- a relatively small amount of money, a relatively small amount of time, and we have already had two launches, and the system looks promising. After years and billions of dollars of development, projects such as Ares have relatively little to show for themselves.

In addition, the ~10 ton capability is not unremarkable, it is just normal, and it is enough for the job.

And if you want to go heavier, already Falcon 9 heavy, is said to be capable of 53 tons to LEO. Now that is a lot of mass- probably more than you'd ever need. And likely for far lower developmental and operating costs than the Senate Launch System.

That was my point. No NASA = almost nothing. Nobody else in the US has explored space yet and isn't going to do.

Why not? Is there a magical forcefield 100 kilometers up that only lets NASA vehicles through?

The MPCV would be as dead as SpaceX. SpaceX has spend 500 million USD for developing Falcon 9 and Dragon. But NASA, surprise surprise, has spend SpaceX's total expenditures since 2006 (which was 350 million USD). NASA has funded almost the entire Falcon 1 and 9 test flights and a huge amount for development. SpaceX would be on the rocks and not in orbit these days without NASAs money.

SpaceX also has hundreds of millions of dollars in commercial launch contracts. If they made enough money with those, a DragonLab flight or two per year, would not be much of a problem.

{huge long list of Wikipedia links}

etc...

Firstly, please ignore unmanned spaceflight.

We are not talking about unmanned spaceflight.

We are talking about manned spaceflight.

Secondly, it isn't about NASA's past programs, but the proficiency of NASA in the present and the future. And currently it is not looking too good.

SpaceX neither is the key for NASAs exploration programs, nor does SpaceX explore space. SpaceX is basically funded by NASA just for one reaon: to continue flying cargo and maybe crews to the ISS after Shuttle retirement. Aside from NASA there is nobody else in the US who explores space.

Of course, SpaceX is funded by NASA, to do that. The difference, of course, is that it does it better than Big Aerospace.

What makes Dragon more BEO capable/"far better" than the MPCV?

The fact that it isn't MPCV.

How much money has already been spent on MPCV?

A heavy lifter makes lots of sense. Hopefully nobody won't ever again build something together in orbit by multiple launches over years but this time for flying to Mars. That way the spacecraft will be aged before it even left earth orbit

A heavily lifter does and does not make a lot of sense. On one hand, you can get lower launch costs, and likely better assembly costs, for example, than with a smaller vehicle. But: you get it at a far lower flight-rate. This makes the entire system, less economical.

It's like transporting goods across the Atlantic on a smallish ship, or on a supercarrier. Sending stuff in bulk will likely be cheaper, but it makes very little sense if the cargo market is so small that the supercarrier sails only once a year.

Now, the ISS is a particularly bad example, because it was built by STS. Not only did STS have a low flight-rate, it was also delayed by accidents and other factors, but it is a particularly expensive system as well.

There were 6 Ariane 5 flights in 2010. If we assume these were all LEO payload missions, 108 tons of mass could be launched.

There were 11 Proton launches in 2010. If all of these were LEO payload missions, nearly 230 tons of materials could be launched to LEO.

I'd imagine a good deal of the stuff for Falcon 9H has already flown, in some form, even though there are still unresolved issues. Falcon 9H is a very capable system, but is not built for the absurdly large requirement intended for SLS. Two or three F9H flights could likely put the same amount of mass into LEO as SLS, for less cost.

By achieving higher flight rates, not only do you work through your R&D costs faster, but you lower costs via economies of scale, by higher production rates.

To understand this, imagine how a certain type of car- say a modern Mazda or Citroen, can be made for a certain amount of money.

Now imagine going to an engineering firm, and asking them to build one or two of these cars.

They will tell you to leave; likely by using profanity.

For further effect, imagine setting up an operation to build one or two such cars yourself. It would be a nightmare, for such a low production run.

Is Dragon a manned tended piloted spacecraft? No. Its as simple as that. For the moment it is a cargo taxi for LEO.

I will quote the SpaceX website here;

To ensure a rapid transition from cargo to crew capability, the cargo and crew configurations of Dragon are almost identical, with the exception of the crew escape system, the life support system and onboard controls that allow the crew to take over control from the flight computer when needed. This focus on commonality minimizes the design effort and simplifies the human rating process, allowing systems critical to Dragon crew safety and ISS safety to be fully tested on uncrewed demonstration flights.

That cargo taxi to LEO, is already more than MPCV, for much less. And that cargo vehicle can also recover stuff from orbit, which is something that no other vehicle can do (other than STS). Once NASA has that 3000kg return ability, they are already in a much better place.

Dragon is closer to being a complete manned spaceflight that actually flies people, than MPCV is. With every cargo flight of Dragon, even, it will get a little closer still.

Yes, Dragon could sustain manned flight, but to do the things the MPCV could do it would need a complete overhaul in places.

Yeah. But likely for less money.

It's more than we have with a grounded MPCV. Besides it looks like the Chinese will go to the moon, and beat us all out of LEO for the first time in 40 years. Who's to say they won't have a Mars lander before we do?

I'm waiting for CNSA to develop some hydrolox propulsion... it would be painful seeing them try to orchestrate a Mars mission with hypergolics or whatever they currently use. :shifty:

 

[FADEC]

Is Dragon a manned tended piloted spacecraft? No. Its as simple as that. For the moment it is a cargo taxi for LEO.

The MPCV is far in advance of what Dragon is. From its conception it was designed and built to be a long duration manned spacecraft. Yes, Dragon could sustain manned flight, but to do the things the MPCV could do it would need a complete overhaul in places. And I'm not exactly anti-SpaceX. Thats just the facts.

Dragon and MPCV are two entirely different things.

I'm also not exactly anti-SpaceX

I just see things as they are. NASA is the US space agency which, aside from political and management mistakes and money talk, does explore space for half a decade. SpaceX is a privately founded rocket company which got the assignment and most importantly the required money from NASA to support the ISS with cargo and "potentially" with crews. "Commercial" cargo is not a bad idea (and "commercial" crew will have to pass strict requirements though). It might relieve NASA and free up resources. And SpaceX is relatively succesfull for now. But I can't really understand the euphoria. SpaceX did not reinvent the wheel at all. They profit from decades of experiences and achievements from the US aerospace industries which have done all this since NASA was founded. Launching rockets in the 21st Century shouldn't be a big deal anymore. Especially if one gets capable engineers which were skilled by the US aerospace industries based on decades of experiences

The new feature is that SpaceX was privately founded. But SpaceX was bankrupt without NASAs COTS contract. In the same year in which NASA begun to found the total expenditures of SpaceX (2006) they begun to launch their rockets. And I don't think that this happened by accident. If we keep all naivety aside for a moment, we have to admit that this is new wine in old wineskins because it actually means that there still would be no space flight without governmental funding. The media is right whenever it reports that Falcon 9 is the first rocket which was launched to orbit by a private company. But the truth behind is that the required money came and comes from NASA which is US tax payer money.

SpaceX started with a few people. Now they have over 1000 employees. Once one would like to see SpaceX pushing further into space, it will increase the required infrastructure and most importantly it will be an assignment coming from NASA, all granted by congress. Nobody else. Once SpaceX is going to launch crews to the ISS, the know-how and everything else required to do so will come from NASA.

I can't see how SpaceX does really change things. And I can't see how SpaceX does BEO missions with Dragon. This is not any kind of a solution for going beyond earth orbit manned in a cheap and reliable way. There is way more required than just Dragon and SpaceX. SpaceX won't do this without the know-how of NASA and lots of governmental funding.

 

[RisingFury]

Firstly, please ignore unmanned spaceflight.

We are not talking about manned spaceflight.

We are talking about manned spaceflight.

So we're not talking about manned or unmanned space flight? :lol:

 

[FADEC]

@ T.Neo

one can't ignore the fact that NASA does explore space manned as well as unmanned. SpaceX does not because is not assigned to do so by anybody. It is basically funded by NASA tax money to transport NASA supply to the ISS and back.

Don't be naive

 

[T.Neo]

So we're not talking about manned or unmanned space flight?

No, we're talking about manned spaceflight. You see, it's the italics that give it true meaning... :lol:

one can't ignore the fact that NASA does explore space manned as well as unmanned.

And they are two seperate issues. NASA gets along just fine with unmanned exploration. It doesn't need huge rockets or expensive capsules or whatever, to launch stuff like that.

No MPCV, Dragon, or Shuttle is going to affect whether NASA does or does not do stuff like MER or Cassini or Juno.

SpaceX does not because is not assigned to do so by anybody. It is basically funded by NASA tax money to transport NASA supply to the ISS and back.

Yes and?

What is your point? I never said, that this was the not the case. I never said, that SpaceX launching stuff, was extremely super-special.

What they have done, in the time and funding they have had, is pretty impressive, compared to the sort of vapourware we've gotten elsewhere.

That is the important bit, that you don't seem to acknowledge. Maybe there is a language barrier here, but to me it almost feels like you are trying to dodge the point and just be silly about it.

There is no reason for MPCV, there is no need for MPCV, and there are things out there that are (potentially) better than MPCV. So why should NASA spend so much money on MPCV?

Don't be naive

:facepalm:

 

[Capt_hensley]

^ I should hope that Space X is learning, and using NASA knowledge. I'm sure Orbital Sciences, Interorbital Systems, Space Dev, LM, Boeing, Grumman, ATK, and many many others are learning and using NASA Knowledge and experience. ULA, ILS, and Sea Launch just want to hurl stuff up, that's how they make money. They don't care where it comes from. And they do it well.

Agreed, were moving from government owed and operated to commercial owned, and gov operated, and yes NASA is throwing money at commercial. I get the impression you think all progress is being made at the taxpayers expense.

I'm inclined to believe we should use taxpayer dollars to lead the way, and I believe that this is the direction our gov is trying to send us. Even Virgin Galactic needed seed money, and NASA gave them some. However none of the commercial companies are being fully funded by NASA. It's more naive to think this way.

Space X won a gov contract, so did OSC, so what, someone had to win. Have you seen the competitors list? It's very long.
HTV, ATV, and Soyuz all get NASA funding by winning the contracts, just because they won a long time ago, doesn't keep them off the radar, most people forget this small fact.

Commercial space is figuring out that there is profit to be made in space, LEO to BEO and all points in between. Some are posturing for lunar (Interorbital systems) others for LEO (Orbital Sciences) but some are looking to cover multiple arenas. Space X, LM, Boeing, Space Dev, Grumman, ULA, ILS, ATK, and so on.

The bottom line is, less than half the money to be gained will come from NASA and Gov spending, and what NASA spends is spread thin over several contracts, and even more companies.

RE: Space X changing things. They do because they have a plan, a full spectrum rocket family, and far fewer obstacles to overcome than Apollo, STS, or Russia ever had, the base line is done, now it's time for improvements and to capitalize on the opportunity and experience.

Dragon is just the next stepping stone to BEO, even if Dragon doesn't go itself, it's tech will be carried forward. The same for CST-100, MPCV, Dream Chaser, Neptune Ripper, and so on...

That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

 

[N_Molson]

Again, I think it's an error to compare the two spacecraft. They really aren't designed for the same purpose. While you can stack 7 person inside a capsule for a two or three days ride, this is unthinkable for a long duration mission beyond LEO. I'm pretty sure that there are differences when you look closely at life support systems, storage areas, navigation systems, radiation shielding...

And about this "private compagnies" thing... Well, they seem heavily funded by the federal money, so I'd say "semi-private" at best, "sub-spaceflight agencies" at worst...

 

[Tacolev]

Besides, it's not like spaceflight hasn't already been "privatized" from the get-go in the US. Companies like North American, Convair, Grumman, Rockwell, Martin? Still private companies even if they're remembered for filling government contracts. The only thing special about SpaceX is that it isn't currently known as either "Lockheed" or "Boeing."